Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 6/8/2026. Claims 1, 5, and 7 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection incorporating Sobolev et al. (US 2003/0188669).
Examiner notes Applicant attempts to argue unexpected results for formate salts, specifically with RDP (RPP), but the instant specification does not support such a conclusion. Examiner notes only a single Example teaches using both formate and RDP and it is clear when not using formate, RDP also increases adhesion (See Table 3, 1-2 to 1-5 indicate RDP increases adhesion and so does activator). No similar comparisons are made to other activators using similar conditions and Examiner notes every mention of formate is in a group with other activators with no special advantage ever attributed to it. Applicant does indicate calcium hydroxide has higher adhesion than sodium sulfate or calcium chloride, though the data to conclude so is extremely thin (See instant PgPub 2025/0011237, page 7, paragraph [0105]). No similar conclusion is made about formate and the Examiner notes the formate examples use less water than the Table 5 examples (which do not show any non-activator examples), and are designed to show activator can improve relative to no activator (note even no activator in Table 3 has greater adhesive than in Table 5, thus indicating the conditions are different, and providing no evidence formate, as opposed to the activators in Table 5, create the difference), but do not provide comparative Examples showing formate performs better than other activators under the same conditions commensurate in scope with the claims. Using less water certainly would have been expected to improve adhesion strength as more water would have been expected to increase porosity and lessen grip strength. As such, Applicant does not have adequate evidence to support unexpected results for formate commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP 716.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okemini et al., Effects of rice husk ash as filler on the bond strength and mechanical properties of ceramic tile mortar, Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research 8(2), pgs 114-122, (2016) (hereinafter “Okemini”) in view of Sobolev et al. (US 2003/0188669).
Examiner notes the “hydraulic binder” is interpreted to comprise only the ordinary Portland cement and the biomass ash, the weight percentages recited being relative to each other in this “hydraulic binder” component, but the amount of “hydraulic binder” in the cementitious composition being unstated in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, Okemini teaches a cementitious composition comprising (See page 114, Abstract, wherein a mortar is a cementitious composition)
a) a hydraulic binder itself comprising (in each case relative to the total dry weight of hydraulic binder)
ai) 50 - 92 w% of Ordinary Portland Cement (See page 115, 2.1 Materials, teaching the cement as ordinary Portland cement (OPC)), and
aii) 21 - 30 w% of biomass ash (See Abstract, using rice husk ash (RHA), a biomass ash, as a filler; and page 116, Table 2, teaching formulations with loadings of RHA 10.0 wt%, 12.0 wt%, and 14.0 wt% relative to 37.0, 35.0, and 33.0 wt% of OPC, respectively, and wherein the “hydraulic binder” is only OPC and biomass ash, thus making the respective RHA biomass weight percentages 10/(10+37)=0.213, 12/47=0.255, and 14/47=0.298, thus making hydraulic binder of 21.3w% RHA (and 88.7w% OPC), 25.5w% RHA (and 74.5w% OPC), and 29.8w% RHA (and 70.2w% OPC) in the examples using loadings of RHA 10.0 wt%, 12.0 wt%, and 14.0 wt%, respectively, all within the claimed range);
b) 0.01 - 0.5 w% (relative to the total dry weight of the cementitious composition), of cellulose ether (See page 116, top of page and Table 2, teaching 0.5% of the dry mix, i.e. the total dry weight of the cementitious composition, in all examples being CMC, i.e. carboxyl methyl cellulose, which is a cellulose ether);
and c) 0.5 w% acacia gum, which is taught as a substitute for RPP, i.e. redispersible polymer powder (See Top page 116 and Table 2, and note it would have been apparent acacia gum is a low cost but less effective binding substitute for RPP). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize RPP instead of acacia gum. Doing so would have provided a similar, and likely superior binding effect to acacia gum when performance is prioritized over cost.
Okemini fails to specifically teach using an activator such as a formate salt. However, in similar hydraulic composition using silica dioxide materials such as rice husk ash in the composition (See, for example, Sobolev et al., page 1, paragraphs [0010]-[0011] and page 6, Claim 1), it is well-known to utilize activators such as calcium formate up to 10% relative to the RHA material in order to better homogenize the composition while accelerating hardening (See page 2, paragraph [0014] and page 6, Claim 6, teaching 10:1 silica, i.e. RHA, to electrolytic agent, i.e. activator, such as calcium formate, with 10% being 1 w%, 1.2 w%, and 1.4 w% respectively relative to the above RHA amounts). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize activators such as calcium formate at 1% dry weight of the cementitious composition in Okemini. Doing so would have predictably caused better homogenization and more accelerated curing of a composition having RHA.
Regarding Claim 6, Okemini teaches a standard sieve to size the RHA biomass ash to 187 microns, i.e. 0.187 mm (See Abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, Okemini teaches the dry mix is formed together before water is added to it (See page 117, Mechanical Properties). Any area where the dry mix is held before mixing is a first compartment A and anywhere where the water is held before mixing a second compartment B, these “compartments” necessarily being spatially separated prior to mixing.
Regarding Claim 8, Okemini describes the watered dry mix as a “ceramic tile mortar” an “adhesive mortar,” thus making it a “tile adhesive” as claimed (See page 117, Mechanical Properties).
Regarding Claim 10, Okemini specifically recites the mortar as having low void spaces, i.e. low porosity (See page 120, Conclusion), thus inherently making it less susceptible to water intrusion and reasonably making it a “waterproofing mortar” without more specific recitation as to what such a mortar requires structurally.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okemini and Sobolev et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Burgos Enriquez (US 2018/0002229).
Regarding Claim 2, Okemini and Sobolev et al. teach the composition of Claim 1, as described above. Okemini teaches rice husk is a common “agro waste” with minimal industrial demand generally, but a suitable pozzolan when burned to ash (See page 115). Examiner submits it would have been apparent similar agro wastes known to be used similarly to RHA as pozzolans with cement in hydraulic binders to form mortars could have predictably been substituted for the RHA to similar effect in the mortar therein so as to make use of various available agro waste for this purpose. Another common agro waste burned to ash and used similarly to RHA as a pozzolan in the hydraulic binders for forming mortars is bagasse ash (See Abstract, page 1, paragraphs [0023]-[0026], and page 4, paragraph [0120], wherein bagasse ash is taught as one of two alternatives to RHA as a pozzolan from agro waste in hydraulic binders with Portland cement to form mortars). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize bagasse ash instead of RHA as the pozzolan in Okemini. Doing so would have predictably enabled to usage of other types of available agricultural wastes known to be similarly applicable to RHA as pozzolans in hydraulic binders for forming mortars.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okemini and Sobolev et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Garuti, Jr. et al. (US 2010/0034978).
Regarding Claim 3, Okemini and Sobolev et al. teaches the composition of Claim 1, as described above. As discussed above, Okemini teaches CMC as the cellulose ether, but not those recited. However, cellulose ethers are well-known additives in cement, such as thickeners, and cellulose ethers such as methylhydroxyethylcellulose (HEMC) are known equivalents to CMC as cellulose ether in cement, such as Portland cement (See page 3, paragraphs [0019]-[0020], teaching HPMC and CMC as known cellulose ether additives in cement used as thickeners/rheology modifiers). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use HPMC instead of CMC in Okemini. These common cellulose ether additives in cement would have predictably had an equivalent additive function when utilized at similar loadings in cements as described therein.
Regarding Claim 5, Okemini teaches the composition of Claim 1, as described above. Okemini doesn’t teach superplasticizers such as lignosulfates, but these are well-known additives to adapt mechanical properties of the cement (See page 4, paragraph [0024], teaching cementitious composition may have 0.1-10% superplasticizer of lignin sulfonates, i.e. lignosulfates, suggesting such loadings are known in similar composition to achieve the mechanical benefit of a super plasticizer). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize lignosulfates as additives within the claimed range in Okemini. Doing so would have predictably enabled processing and mechanical benefits for the mortar therein.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okemini and Sobolev et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Schmitz et al. (US 5,747,578).
Regarding Claim 4, Okemini and Sobolev et al. teach the composition of Claim 1, as described above. As discussed above, Okemini teaches RPP as a standard ingredient where acacia gum is used as a low-cost substitute. However, when desiring higher quality product where cost is less an issue, using designer building material RPP as the binder would have predictably produced superior results. Examiner submits RPP based on ethylene and vinyl acetate and within the claimed Tg range is well-known as binder for building materials such as cement to produce superior sealing (See, for example Schmitz et al., Abstract, col. 1, lines 7-11, col. 2, lines15-49, and col. 15, lines 23-43). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize RPP as claimed. Doing so would have predictably provided more performance sealing for cement building material relative to acacia gum when performance sealing is desired over low cost.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights